Brand new here and really angered by...

[Nanook 2]

Actually, here in Alabama it is banned for interracial marriages. It's an old law on the state constitution, and I know a few years ago they had a whatever to try to update the constitution, and I believe they decided to leave the interracial marriage ban in as historical nostalgia-- but it's no longer enforced.

Exactly, we can still have this antiquated crap on the books and it's fine??? I don't get it, that's why I think there needs to be more involvement from the fed gov!

[green 6]

How can we be so close to Canada in location yet so far in ideals. This always amazes me! You're lucky!

Exactly. I don't consider myself proud to be a Canadian for this was not my achievement. I was born here is all and that is something I had no control over. I do consider myself very lucky!

[plain 12]

Exactly, we can still have this antiquated crap on the books and it's fine??? I don't get it, that's why I think there needs to be more involvement from the fed gov!

Wow....that's one of the few times I've heard anybody say that! It might sound good, Nancy, but what if the federal government ruled in a way that you didn't like? Then you'd be all "Man it sucks to live here. I'd rather be in Canada". If the fed left more issues for individual states to decide, then at least you could decide to live in a state that had the same political / social beliefs as you. It's almost like political capitalism.

[Nanook 2]

Don't you think it's a bit insane that certain southern states still have laws like that? Sometimes the fed government could do more good than harm.

[plain 12]

Don't you think it's a bit insane that certain southern states still have laws like that? Sometimes the fed government could do more good than harm.

Of course it's insane! But I don't want the fed poking their nose in. Just think, if you had said that 8 years ago, you'd have a George Bush government making laws for, not just a state that needs correcting, but for all states. And I know how you feel about Bush. It's easy to fall into the trap of "my candidate is now president....He'll make fed laws that make sense". But remember, eventually, a candidate that you dislike may inherit that same power. Better to leave it to the states, and the people that live within that state.

I personally feel like you and Law-ra do. That law is stupid. If enough people made a fuss to amend the constitution and replace it, the state would. If people don't care enough, well.....at least you personally don't have to live there.

[Donna113 2]

Of course it's insane! But I don't want the fed poking their nose in. Just think, if you had said that 8 years ago, you'd have a George Bush government making laws for, not just a state that needs correcting, but for all states. And I know how you feel about Bush. It's easy to fall into the trap of "my candidate is now president....He'll make fed laws that make sense". But remember, eventually, a candidate that you dislike may inherit that same power. Better to leave it to the states, and the people that live within that state.

I personally feel like you and Law-ra do. That law is stupid. If enough people made a fuss to amend the constitution and replace it, the state would. If people don't care enough, well.....at least you personally don't have to live there.

Plain, you just make too much sense!

[plain 12]

Plain, you just make too much sense!

And now I have a compliment from Donna "framed" in my very own quotebox! Next time I say something stupid, I'm gonna break this out, Donna.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

I don't care about the word, I care about the rights. Some people do care about the word because they are very religious and want their marriage to be in the eyes of God. Gay doesn't mean Godless. So for them, I fight for it, and argue for it. For me, I demand the same rights that anyone else gets.

If they feel God is okay with it, then some legal label doesn't matter. Perhaps they need the legal label to justify their own actions.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

I also don't see how states can approve things and take it back constantly like CA has. To me it's totally insane and possibly should be taken out of the hands of the states in put in the hands of the federal government and make all marriages between any two consenting adults legal!!

Actually, before it was legal, the PEOPLE voted NO to gay marriage, then four judges took the decision away from the PEOPLE. Prop 8 was putting it back where it should be, with citizens voting. Again, the people have spoken, yet gay activists everywhere think their own opinions should outrank the people's opinions. The only way it passed was because it was taken out of the hands of the people and passed on to the government. The only way it will pass again is if Californians allow activists to bypass voters yet again.

[plain 12]

And it was voted down by a resounding 80%....wow.....I didn't see that coming. When I think of California, I don't picture a bastion of conservatism.

[MacMadame 81]

but I don't agree with teaching it to children in school.

And yet nothing in Prop 8 stops schools from teaching about gay marriage. Nothing.

I agree. Do you know what I think would be good. If the government only recognized civil unions. Peroid. The church's could still have their marriages, and could be married in the eyes of whatever religious diety they chose, but our government only recognize civil unions, not marriages.

For the GLBT community and all straight couples. Seperate but equal just doesn't work.

Okay, how do we get the ball rolling? :thumbup:

If they feel God is okay with it, then some legal label doesn't matter. Perhaps they need the legal label to justify their own actions.

They would only need to "justify" their own actions, if their actions were wrong. But they aren't wrong. There is nothing to justify. YOU think there is because you think it's wrong. But it's not logical to think that homosexuals think that way.

Besides, it's not about a legal label at all. It's about RIGHTS. The legal label of marriage brings certain rights in this country that the legal label of civil union does not.

Actually, before it was legal, the PEOPLE voted NO to gay marriage, then four judges took the decision away from the PEOPLE. Prop 8 was putting it back where it should be, with citizens voting.

The "people" also thought black and white people shouldn't marry at one point. But the people were wrong.

Plus, a strict constitutionalist would know that this issue is not one that should have been put to a constitutional amendment. In fact, it was challenged on those grounds before the vote and is being challenged again and will probably be struck down. The initiative process was not meant to make fundamental changes to the constituation, only to make clarifications and improvements to existing philosophies. There is another process for making fundamental changes and that process was not followed.

The law and the processes need to be followed, otherwise we just have mob rule.

[plain 12]

The law and the processes need to be followed, otherwise we just have mob rule.

AKA, democracy....kidding....I actually find the whole process quite interesting. On the radical ends of the spectrum are anarchy and judicial activism. Somewhere in between those two points is the opportunity for average citizens to vote for what they want their state to be. I know I keep harping on this, but for prop 8 to be defeated in such a resounding manner tells me that the majority of Californians would vote down such a measure no matter what approach to changing the state constitution was used.

80%? I might expect that in Texas, but not Cali...

[ReadySteadyGo 8]

Actually, here in Alabama it is banned for interracial marriages. It's an old law on the state constitution, and I know a few years ago they had a whatever to try to update the constitution, and I believe they decided to leave the interracial marriage ban in as historical nostalgia-- but it's no longer enforced.

Wow, I had no idea. See now that old law seems ridiculous. Outdated.

In louisiana we have old laws that outlaw any sex but missionary style, and we have a law saying you can't spit on the street.

Of course, not enforced.

[ReadySteadyGo 8]

If they feel God is okay with it, then some legal label doesn't matter. Perhaps they need the legal label to justify their own actions.

Okay. I'm trying to be patient...but come on.

Your little "legal label" means this.

finicial benefits for

taxes, retirement, property ownership, inheritance, insurance rates, family and medical care, freaking car rentals, hospital visitation and the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner(very very very very important- If you are not considered immediate family you can be kept out of ICU when your partner of 20 years is dying), Adoption, child custody, sponsorship of a non-American partner, Surviver's rights to Social Security benefits, tax-free inheritance of a spouse's estate. Hey, Family discounts at national parks.

An unmarried couple pays about 22 percent more for car insurance than a married one, (Doug Heller- Founder of Tax Payer and Consumer Rights.) Life insurance companies can fight against one partner's "insurable interest" for an "unmarried" couple.

When one partner dies, Often they are stuck with huge tax bills for their partner's estate -- married couples inherit from each other tax-free -- and the surviver of a gay partnership is not entitled to get their partners Social Security or federal pensions.

Then there is the simple thing of two people loving each other and wanting it to be official...just as official as yours.

Plain- The end result in california as I heard it was

52- For prop 8

48- Against prop 8

Like a 400,000 vote difference.

Am I wrong? Now in Florida it was about 60- 40.

(I would also like to say that the tax free inheritance might be different state to state)

Edited November 7, 2008 by ReadySteadyGo
added a disclaimer :)

[babygrl1234 6]

In louisiana we have old laws that outlaw any sex but missionary style, and we have a law saying you can't spit on the street.

.

I could deal with not spitting on the street.:thumbup: